Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Amanda Little, 26, of Oxford, initially told police that she was kidnapped while walking in the parking lot of the Walmart at about 1 a.m. on Dogwood Drive on June 24, investigators said. Little said she was taken to an undisclosed location and sexually assaulted, said police.

Upon further investigation, and after reviewing video from the Walmart parking lot, police said Little’s story simply didn’t add up. She later admitted to detectives that she lied and told them that she had been having sex at another location when her cell phone, which was in her back pocket, accidentally dialed the number of her boyfriend’s friend and left a voicemail recording, police said. Little said she came up with the abduction story as a cover up, investigators said.

“Our detectives did a good job with ferreting out the truth here. We are an agency that focuses in on the needs of our victims, and cases like this simply are a waste of time and tie up valuable police resources,” Conyers police said.

Amanda Little, 26, of Oxford, initially told police that she was kidnapped while walking in the parking lot of the Walmart at about 1 a.m. on Dogwood Drive on June 24, investigators said. Little said she was taken to an undisclosed location and sexually assaulted, said police.

Upon further investigation, and after reviewing video from the Walmart parking lot, police said Little’s story simply didn’t add up. She later admitted to detectives that she lied and told them that she had been having sex at another location when her cell phone, which was in her back pocket, accidentally dialed the number of her boyfriend’s friend and left a voicemail recording, police said. Little said she came up with the abduction story as a cover up, investigators said.

“Our detectives did a good job with ferreting out the truth here. We are an agency that focuses in on the needs of our victims, and cases like this simply are a waste of time and tie up valuable police resources,” Conyers police said.

Monday, August 30, 2010

SASKATOON — A Saskatoon woman with a long history of mental-health problems pleaded guilty to a mischief charge this week over a phoney sex-assault tale that prompted a full-scale river search.Michaela Rose Brown was 19 when she called 911 with a horror story on Sept. 10, 2007.Brown said she had been sexually assaulted by a group of five males who had followed up the attack by tying her hands behind her back and dumping her into the river.When officers found her, she told them she'd been with a female friend, who had also been tied up and thrown in the water.The city's emergency responders swung into high gear to scour the shoreline for the missing woman, calling out canine units, a police plane, divers from the fire department's water rescue team and ambulance personnel.Meanwhile, Brown was taken to hospital — where she refused to co-operate when staff tried to perform a standard sexual-assault kit on her, Crown prosecutor Deb Black told court.After turning up nothing at the river, police went to the home of the supposedly missing woman, where they found her, safe and sound.The friend said she had not been with Brown at all that day. When they confronted Brown, some confusion arose about whether she might have given the wrong last name for the missing woman, so police decided to continue the search, Black said.During an interview with a police sergeant about four hours after she first called 911, Brown admitted she'd fabricated the whole incident.Police learned she had a long history of mental-health problems and was under the care of a psychiatrist, court heard.Brown's false allegation cost Saskatoon Fire and Protective Services about $7,000 — and that doesn't include the hours of work expended by a large number of police officers, Black told court.Defence lawyer Michelle LeClair-Harding said Brown, now 22, has struggled with her mental health since she was a child and that, as a child, she was in and out of foster care and was exposed to physical, emotional and sexual abuse, as well as domestic violence.At the time of the incident she was not taking medication and was going through a period of "teenage angst," LeClair-Harding said.Judge Donna Scott accepted a joint recommendation from the Crown and defence to give Brown an 18-month suspended sentence, during which she will be on probation and must take any treatment or medication prescribed to her, and attend any programming ordered by her parole officer.

SASKATOON — A Saskatoon woman with a long history of mental-health problems pleaded guilty to a mischief charge this week over a phoney sex-assault tale that prompted a full-scale river search.
Michaela Rose Brown was 19 when she called 911 with a horror story on Sept. 10, 2007.
Brown said she had been sexually assaulted by a group of five males who had followed up the attack by tying her hands behind her back and dumping her into the river.
When officers found her, she told them she'd been with a female friend, who had also been tied up and thrown in the water.
The city's emergency responders swung into high gear to scour the shoreline for the missing woman, calling out canine units, a police plane, divers from the fire department's water rescue team and ambulance personnel.
Meanwhile, Brown was taken to hospital — where she refused to co-operate when staff tried to perform a standard sexual-assault kit on her, Crown prosecutor Deb Black told court.
After turning up nothing at the river, police went to the home of the supposedly missing woman, where they found her, safe and sound.
The friend said she had not been with Brown at all that day. When they confronted Brown, some confusion arose about whether she might have given the wrong last name for the missing woman, so police decided to continue the search, Black said.
During an interview with a police sergeant about four hours after she first called 911, Brown admitted she'd fabricated the whole incident.
Police learned she had a long history of mental-health problems and was under the care of a psychiatrist, court heard.
Brown's false allegation cost Saskatoon Fire and Protective Services about $7,000 — and that doesn't include the hours of work expended by a large number of police officers, Black told court.
Defence lawyer Michelle LeClair-Harding said Brown, now 22, has struggled with her mental health since she was a child and that, as a child, she was in and out of foster care and was exposed to physical, emotional and sexual abuse, as well as domestic violence.
At the time of the incident she was not taking medication and was going through a period of "teenage angst," LeClair-Harding said.
Judge Donna Scott accepted a joint recommendation from the Crown and defence to give Brown an 18-month suspended sentence, during which she will be on probation and must take any treatment or medication prescribed to her, and attend any programming ordered by her parole officer.

Friday, August 27, 2010

Over the years that I've been online, I've encountered all types and levels of feminists. There are earnest feminists, like I wrote about last time; I've had the most experience with them. There are the fanatical Dworkin wannabees; haven't had much personal dealings with these folks, though their writings are easily accessible online.

There are the ditzy-broad types, the squealy, over-grown girls who conceptualize feminism as just another part of the popular culture that's "in" -- like texting or Mad Men. These are women who have no inkling of the horrific damage feminism has done to western culture, male-female relationships, and the family, nor the danger it poses for the future. I am completely at a loss about how to deal with these girls.

But the most frustrating type of feminist I've ever encountered are male. They're not just dedicated feminists; they're also hard-core misandrists, and they're some of the most rigid, close-minded folks I've ever encountered. They are the fundamentalist extremists of the gender politics world. The required beliefs and attitudes are engraved in granite with them. Women are totally inmocent and never lie about rape, never falsely accuse. Men, enforcers and beneficiaries of patriarchy, are apt to rape and abuse without thought or conscience. We're steeped in a culture of rape; it's what men use to keep women in a state of fear; to keep her under his thumb, or his heel. Because for men, oppression of women is what it's all about.

On the rare occasions when women to do slip up and lie, steal, abuse their kids, cheat on their husbands or shoot somebody -- they aren't doing it because they're bad, the way men are. They're ill. Or they're disadvantaged. Or they've been pushed, usually by some man, to the point of desperation.

Most of these misandric fellows I've encountered are old enough to remember the second-wave days when bra-burning feminists marched arm in arm across the landscape with tie-dyed war protesters, dope smokers, campus in-sitters and sexual revolutionaries. They've got not just rape culture but the whole oppressed-women repertoire down pat. And it is absolutely pointless to reason with them.

They fluently spout the statistic that women make seventy-nine cents for every dollar a man makes, but go stone cold deaf when it's explained to them that women do seventy percent of the work men do. They decry the glass ceiling in the boardroom, but don't seem at all concerned that feminists leaders aren't jumping up and down to Title Nine mining, construction and logging, the most dangerous jobs in the job market, held almost exclusively by men. And they have no appreciation for the fact that ninety-three percent of workplace fatalities occur to men. So much for equality.

In the past, these fellows tell me, women attempted to break into some of these all-male bastions, but were met with such harassment -- peepholes drilled in restroom walls, for example -- that they gave up. Women are strong and capable; they can mine or timberjack, do anything a man can do. But they're too delicate to stick a wad of Bubble Yum over a peephole? Please.

Well, if working is such a trauma, why do feminists discourage women from homemaking? Because, these guys will tell you, stay-at-home wife-and-mothering -- cleaning, cooking, laundry -- is drudgery.

"Really?" I asked once. "Punching microwave buttons is drudgery?"

"Cleaning toilets is drudgery."

I'm astounded, and I wonder how dirty a male misandrist's toilet has to get before he cleans it. I mean, my gosh, a squirt of The Works, a swish of the brush, flush, you're all done. A career woman living alone would have to clean her own toilet unless she's rich enough to hire a maid. But when there's a husband and kid in the household, it suddenly becomes drudgery?

For women, marriage is slavery, these guys think. They're bought into the whole cockamamie, Betty Friedan, suburban concentration camp meme.To my way of thinking, in a traditional marriage, it's more likely for the man to be enslaved to a job to provide for a family. Of course, I don't think most men see it that way. Most of the men I've know see it as a responsibility, a facet of their masculine role and a way of demonstrating their love for their family.

Thus, if a man goes out to work -- sometimes to risk his life in a deadly profession -- in order to provide for his family, I don't think he's asking too much for his wife to keep the house clean, to take care of the kids, and share intimacy with him.

As long as she's asked, the male misandrist says. It's when it's expected, demanded, that it becomes slavery for women.

I'm not making this up. This is how hard core male misandric feminists think. Which is purely ridiculous, when you consider it. Certain expectations are in place as soon as the preacher says, "You may kiss the bride," that render most day-to-day "asking" unnecessary.

Do these misandrists really think a wife has to wake up every morning and ask, "Honey, would you mind going to work today and making money so we can buy something to eat?" And the husband has to ask, "Sure thing, babe. Would you mind cooking us some breakfast?" And if these things are not asked, the clinking sound you hear are leg-irons magically clamping around her ankles?

Where do these bizarre ideas come from? Traditional marriage is not slavery. A wife expecting a husband to take care of the family is not slavery; a husband expecting a wife to take care of the house and kids and share a sexual relationship with him is not slavery. Marriage where both husband and wife work outside the home and share housekeeping chores and child-rearing is not slavery, either.

Conversing with one of these fellows is sometimes like talking to two people at once. Women are slaves when they need them to be; strong when they need them to be. Women are timid, easily offended little violets when they need them to be, and brilliant and capable when they need them to be. It all depends on what case the misandric feminist male is trying to make. There's something about women and oppression they just can't shake loose from.

The best way to describe my encounters with these dudes is teeth-gnashing and hair-pulling (my own, yes). The only bright side of my experience with them is that there doesn't seem to be very many of them. The intellect and temperament of the majority of men, thank goodness, will not accomodate such nonsense.

Over the years that I've been online, I've encountered all types and levels of feminists. There are earnest feminists, like I wrote about last time; I've had the most experience with them. There are the fanatical Dworkin wannabees; haven't had much personal dealings with these folks, though their writings are easily accessible online.

There are the ditzy-broad types, the squealy, over-grown girls who conceptualize feminism as just another part of the popular culture that's "in" -- like texting or Mad Men. These are women who have no inkling of the horrific damage feminism has done to western culture, male-female relationships, and the family, nor the danger it poses for the future. I am completely at a loss about how to deal with these girls.

But the most frustrating type of feminist I've ever encountered are male. They're not just dedicated feminists; they're also hard-core misandrists, and they're some of the most rigid, close-minded folks I've ever encountered. They are the fundamentalist extremists of the gender politics world. The required beliefs and attitudes are engraved in granite with them. Women are totally inmocent and never lie about rape, never falsely accuse. Men, enforcers and beneficiaries of patriarchy, are apt to rape and abuse without thought or conscience. We're steeped in a culture of rape; it's what men use to keep women in a state of fear; to keep her under his thumb, or his heel. Because for men, oppression of women is what it's all about.

On the rare occasions when women to do slip up and lie, steal, abuse their kids, cheat on their husbands or shoot somebody -- they aren't doing it because they're bad, the way men are. They're ill. Or they're disadvantaged. Or they've been pushed, usually by some man, to the point of desperation.

Most of these misandric fellows I've encountered are old enough to remember the second-wave days when bra-burning feminists marched arm in arm across the landscape with tie-dyed war protesters, dope smokers, campus in-sitters and sexual revolutionaries. They've got not just rape culture but the whole oppressed-women repertoire down pat. And it is absolutely pointless to reason with them.

They fluently spout the statistic that women make seventy-nine cents for every dollar a man makes, but go stone cold deaf when it's explained to them that women do seventy percent of the work men do. They decry the glass ceiling in the boardroom, but don't seem at all concerned that feminists leaders aren't jumping up and down to Title Nine mining, construction and logging, the most dangerous jobs in the job market, held almost exclusively by men. And they have no appreciation for the fact that ninety-three percent of workplace fatalities occur to men. So much for equality.

In the past, these fellows tell me, women attempted to break into some of these all-male bastions, but were met with such harassment -- peepholes drilled in restroom walls, for example -- that they gave up. Women are strong and capable; they can mine or timberjack, do anything a man can do. But they're too delicate to stick a wad of Bubble Yum over a peephole? Please.

Well, if working is such a trauma, why do feminists discourage women from homemaking? Because, these guys will tell you, stay-at-home wife-and-mothering -- cleaning, cooking, laundry -- is drudgery.

"Really?" I asked once. "Punching microwave buttons is drudgery?"

"Cleaning toilets is drudgery."

I'm astounded, and I wonder how dirty a male misandrist's toilet has to get before he cleans it. I mean, my gosh, a squirt of The Works, a swish of the brush, flush, you're all done. A career woman living alone would have to clean her own toilet unless she's rich enough to hire a maid. But when there's a husband and kid in the household, it suddenly becomes drudgery?

For women, marriage is slavery, these guys think. They're bought into the whole cockamamie, Betty Friedan, suburban concentration camp meme.To my way of thinking, in a traditional marriage, it's more likely for the man to be enslaved to a job to provide for a family. Of course, I don't think most men see it that way. Most of the men I've know see it as a responsibility, a facet of their masculine role and a way of demonstrating their love for their family.

Thus, if a man goes out to work -- sometimes to risk his life in a deadly profession -- in order to provide for his family, I don't think he's asking too much for his wife to keep the house clean, to take care of the kids, and share intimacy with him.

As long as she's asked, the male misandrist says. It's when it's expected, demanded, that it becomes slavery for women.

I'm not making this up. This is how hard core male misandric feminists think. Which is purely ridiculous, when you consider it. Certain expectations are in place as soon as the preacher says, "You may kiss the bride," that render most day-to-day "asking" unnecessary.

Do these misandrists really think a wife has to wake up every morning and ask, "Honey, would you mind going to work today and making money so we can buy something to eat?" And the husband has to ask, "Sure thing, babe. Would you mind cooking us some breakfast?" And if these things are not asked, the clinking sound you hear are leg-irons magically clamping around her ankles?

Where do these bizarre ideas come from? Traditional marriage is not slavery. A wife expecting a husband to take care of the family is not slavery; a husband expecting a wife to take care of the house and kids and share a sexual relationship with him is not slavery. Marriage where both husband and wife work outside the home and share housekeeping chores and child-rearing is not slavery, either.

Conversing with one of these fellows is sometimes like talking to two people at once. Women are slaves when they need them to be; strong when they need them to be. Women are timid, easily offended little violets when they need them to be, and brilliant and capable when they need them to be. It all depends on what case the misandric feminist male is trying to make. There's something about women and oppression they just can't shake loose from.

The best way to describe my encounters with these dudes is teeth-gnashing and hair-pulling (my own, yes). The only bright side of my experience with them is that there doesn't seem to be very many of them. The intellect and temperament of the majority of men, thank goodness, will not accomodate such nonsense.

A woman has been charged with making a false rape allegation after an investigation by police.

The 31-year-old, of Winchester Road, Portsmouth, is also accused of perverting the course of justice. She was bailed to appear at Portsmouth Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 4 August, a spokesman for Hampshire police confirmed.

It follows a police investigation into an allegation of rape in Portsmouth on Monday, 5 July.

Nicola Osborne, of Winchester Road, Buckland, is accused of perverting the court of justice. The 31-year-old is alleged to have falsely claimed she was raped after being forced into a car in Fratton Road, Fratton, in the early hours of July 5.

A 26-year-old man arrested in connection with the allegation was later released without charge. Osborne was released on bail by Portsmouth magistrates to appear at Portsmouth Crown Court in December.

A woman has been charged with making a false rape allegation after an investigation by police.

The 31-year-old, of Winchester Road, Portsmouth, is also accused of perverting the course of justice.
She was bailed to appear at Portsmouth Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 4 August, a spokesman for Hampshire police confirmed.

It follows a police investigation into an allegation of rape in Portsmouth on Monday, 5 July.

Nicola Osborne, of Winchester Road, Buckland, is accused of perverting the court of justice. The 31-year-old is alleged to have falsely claimed she was raped after being forced into a car in Fratton Road, Fratton, in the early hours of July 5.

A 26-year-old man arrested in connection with the allegation was later released without charge. Osborne was released on bail by Portsmouth magistrates to appear at Portsmouth Crown Court in December.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

HOPKINSVILLE POLICE SAY A DENZIL DRIVE WOMAN WAS ARRESTED WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON FOR FALSELY REPORTING SHE WAS RAPED JUNE 28TH.

POLICE SAY 19 YEAR-OLD CHRISTY DAWN LAVENDER OF 1300-2 DENZIL DRIVE WAS ARRESTED WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON AFTER SHE ADMITTED TO DETECTIVES THAT DESPITE HER INITIAL CLAIMS, SHE WAS NOT RAPED ON JUNE 28TH AT HER HOME. SHE TOLD THE DETECTIVE SHE MADE THE CLAIM BECAUSE SHE WAS TRYING TO SAVE HER MARRIAGE.

LAVENDER INITIALLY ACCUSED OF A FORT CAMPBELL MAN OF HAVING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH HER AT HER APARTMENT.

HOPKINSVILLE POLICE SAY A DENZIL DRIVE WOMAN WAS ARRESTED WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON FOR FALSELY REPORTING SHE WAS RAPED JUNE 28TH.

POLICE SAY 19 YEAR-OLD CHRISTY DAWN LAVENDER OF 1300-2 DENZIL DRIVE WAS ARRESTED WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON AFTER SHE ADMITTED TO DETECTIVES THAT DESPITE HER INITIAL CLAIMS, SHE WAS NOT RAPED ON JUNE 28TH AT HER HOME. SHE TOLD THE DETECTIVE SHE MADE THE CLAIM BECAUSE SHE WAS TRYING TO SAVE HER MARRIAGE.

LAVENDER INITIALLY ACCUSED OF A FORT CAMPBELL MAN OF HAVING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH HER AT HER APARTMENT.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

A blogger recently posted a piece that was little more than a collection of rape myths, modern day Chicken Little fables concocted by the sexual grievance industry and handed down like campfire ghost stories to a public all too willing to suspend its disbelief for a good rape scare. Among other assertions posited by that blogger is the following: "False accusations are in many ways the reverse of rape cases. Rape as a crime tends to be underreported and disbelieved. Stories of false accusations, on the other hand, seem to be both widely believed and incredibly common . . . ."

Sigh. How can we say this? The blogger is simply wrong, and that's not just my "opinion." We study this issue extensively and suspect we are qualified to assert, without fear of plausible contradiction, that this blogger got it exactly backwards.

Yesterday, we posted (yet again) about the prevalence of false rape claims, and have even added a permanent link on the right side of this page about it. We won't deal with that again in this post.

We've also written extensively about the tendency of the public to automatically believe even far-fetched allegations of rape without any supporting evidence beyond the accuser's say so. Does that blogger not know of America's painful history of overreacting to rape claims? It was such a problem at one time that one American President focused on it during his State of the Union Address. Has that blogger never heard of the countless innocent men falsely accused of rape who were hanged by vigilante mobs? While that issue is often couched in terms of racial strife, it is much more than that. This blog is replete with modern day instances of falsely accused men -- black and white and every color in between -- being chased, being beaten, and even being killed over what turned out to be a false rape claim.

This blog is also replete with examples of young men being arrested and jailed, sometimes with disastrous consequences for them, over rape charges that were out-and-out fabrications, and that could have been easily disproved with even modest investigation. (I am working on an extensive post about one such case -- the Hofstra false rape case -- for the upcoming first anniversary of that awful claim.) The fact is, law enforcement too often allows itself to be used as little more than muscle for rape liars. And the news media too often allows itself to be nothing more than stenographers for police, ever eager to boost its ratings with some good old fashioned rape hysteria.

But rape claims tend to be disbelieved? Seriously? The fact is, rape claimants are automatically wrapped in the garb of victimhood by the news media, and a gullible public eats up those stories and accepts them as fact -- because, after all, "it's in the newspaper." And make no mistake, rape accusers are wrapped in the garb of victimhood not just in subtle ways, but in blatant, almost over-the-top, ways. They are routinely referred to as "victims." It matters not at all to the Fourth Estate that if an accuser is a "victim," that means the man or boy she accused must be a rapist. Due process be damned.

Don't believe me? The following are from news stories published just today -- and it is only 8:30 am, Eastern Prevailing Time, here in the US:

How about this story: "Woodstock Police have made an arrest in the rape of a teenager last week. 20-year-old Edward Rogers has been charged with raping the teen at the Weatherstone subdivision off of Highway 92. 'It was pretty easy to track him down,' police spokeswoman Brittany Duncan tells WSB. 'They just followed up on a few leads concerning his whereabouts. They just interviewed the victim, then interviewed him.'" (Emphasis added.)

Or this headline: "Victim: Suspect claimed he had injured baby, then assaulted her."

Or this story: "POLICE are investigating the alleged rape of a teenage girl in a town-centre graveyard. . . . . The exact time of the attack is unclear because the 18-year-old victim did not dial 999 immediately, instead contacting a family member who alerted the police. The victim lives in Surrey and the matter was initially reported to officers there before being handed to Sussex Police at 3.55am. Police say the alleged attacker is known to the victim. A Crawley man, 24, was arrested at around 10am yesterday and was still being questioned by detectives as the News went to press yesterday afternoon. The victim, who is described as "extremely distressed", is helping police with the investigation. Officers remained on guard at the graveyard, near County Mall. Anyone with information on the alleged sex attack is asked to call police on 0845 60 70 999, quoting serial 180 of August 24."

Or this headline: "I accepted Lamptey-Mills’ sex offer, it was not rape – Victim."

Or this excerpt from a news story: "A Chattanooga man already facing a rape charges, has now been arrested for child rape. Edward Collins was arrested last week. The victim is a boy, who says Collins entered his bedroom and assaulted him from behind."

Or this excerpt from a news story: "An Indian national jailed for brutally raping a young university student used his victim to re-impose control over women, a court has heard."

Or this excerpt from a news story: ". . . The victim’s brother was working at Enterprise Rental in Wichita Kansas when he recognized Latham’s sister who rented a car from the business. He testified the sister told him where Latham lived and he called authorities. The victim is now 33-years-old and lives out of state. She took the stand today and testified Latham started molesting her during the first week he moved into their house when she was five-years-old."

Or this excerpt from a news story: "A 25-year-old air hostess has accused her boyfriend of raping her. A complaint in this regard was registered at the Sarkhej police station late on Tuesday night by the victim. . . . According to the victim, she used to study in an institute to prepare for her dream job — becoming an air hostess. Later, she also had taught at the same institute."

Depressed yet? Need I go on searching for more stories? In the court of last resort -- our daily newspapers -- the rape trial is over even before it has begun. The unnamed rape accuser is a "victim," the readily identified man or boy she accused must be a rapist, and bloggers feel perfectly justified insisting that this incontrovertible fact just isn't so. Just another day in our False Rape Society.

A blogger recently posted a piece that was little more than a collection of rape myths, modern day Chicken Little fables concocted by the sexual grievance industry and handed down like campfire ghost stories to a public all too willing to suspend its disbelief for a good rape scare. Among other assertions posited by that blogger is the following: "False accusations are in many ways the reverse of rape cases. Rape as a crime tends to be underreported and disbelieved. Stories of false accusations, on the other hand, seem to be both widely believed and incredibly common . . . ."

Sigh. How can we say this? The blogger is simply wrong, and that's not just my "opinion." We study this issue extensively and suspect we are qualified to assert, without fear of plausible contradiction, that this blogger got it exactly backwards.

Yesterday, we posted (yet again) about the prevalence of false rape claims, and have even added a permanent link on the right side of this page about it. We won't deal with that again in this post.

We've also written extensively about the tendency of the public to automatically believe even far-fetched allegations of rape without any supporting evidence beyond the accuser's say so. Does that blogger not know of America's painful history of overreacting to rape claims? It was such a problem at one time that one American President focused on it during his State of the Union Address. Has that blogger never heard of the countless innocent men falsely accused of rape who were hanged by vigilante mobs? While that issue is often couched in terms of racial strife, it is much more than that. This blog is replete with modern day instances of falsely accused men -- black and white and every color in between -- being chased, being beaten, and even being killed over what turned out to be a false rape claim.

This blog is also replete with examples of young men being arrested and jailed, sometimes with disastrous consequences for them, over rape charges that were out-and-out fabrications, and that could have been easily disproved with even modest investigation. (I am working on an extensive post about one such case -- the Hofstra false rape case -- for the upcoming first anniversary of that awful claim.) The fact is, law enforcement too often allows itself to be used as little more than muscle for rape liars. And the news media too often allows itself to be nothing more than stenographers for police, ever eager to boost its ratings with some good old fashioned rape hysteria.

But rape claims tend to be disbelieved? Seriously? The fact is, rape claimants are automatically wrapped in the garb of victimhood by the news media, and a gullible public eats up those stories and accepts them as fact -- because, after all, "it's in the newspaper." And make no mistake, rape accusers are wrapped in the garb of victimhood not just in subtle ways, but in blatant, almost over-the-top, ways. They are routinely referred to as "victims." It matters not at all to the Fourth Estate that if an accuser is a "victim," that means the man or boy she accused must be a rapist. Due process be damned.

Don't believe me? The following are from news stories published just today -- and it is only 8:30 am, Eastern Prevailing Time, here in the US:

How about this story: "Woodstock Police have made an arrest in the rape of a teenager last week. 20-year-old Edward Rogers has been charged with raping the teen at the Weatherstone subdivision off of Highway 92. 'It was pretty easy to track him down,' police spokeswoman Brittany Duncan tells WSB. 'They just followed up on a few leads concerning his whereabouts. They just interviewed the victim, then interviewed him.'" (Emphasis added.)

Or this headline: "Victim: Suspect claimed he had injured baby, then assaulted her."

Or this story: "POLICE are investigating the alleged rape of a teenage girl in a town-centre graveyard. . . . . The exact time of the attack is unclear because the 18-year-old victim did not dial 999 immediately, instead contacting a family member who alerted the police. The victim lives in Surrey and the matter was initially reported to officers there before being handed to Sussex Police at 3.55am. Police say the alleged attacker is known to the victim. A Crawley man, 24, was arrested at around 10am yesterday and was still being questioned by detectives as the News went to press yesterday afternoon. The victim, who is described as "extremely distressed", is helping police with the investigation. Officers remained on guard at the graveyard, near County Mall. Anyone with information on the alleged sex attack is asked to call police on 0845 60 70 999, quoting serial 180 of August 24."

Or this headline: "I accepted Lamptey-Mills’ sex offer, it was not rape – Victim."

Or this excerpt from a news story: "A Chattanooga man already facing a rape charges, has now been arrested for child rape. Edward Collins was arrested last week. The victim is a boy, who says Collins entered his bedroom and assaulted him from behind."

Or this excerpt from a news story: "An Indian national jailed for brutally raping a young university student used his victim to re-impose control over women, a court has heard."

Or this excerpt from a news story: ". . . The victim’s brother was working at Enterprise Rental in Wichita Kansas when he recognized Latham’s sister who rented a car from the business. He testified the sister told him where Latham lived and he called authorities. The victim is now 33-years-old and lives out of state. She took the stand today and testified Latham started molesting her during the first week he moved into their house when she was five-years-old."

Or this excerpt from a news story: "A 25-year-old air hostess has accused her boyfriend of raping her. A complaint in this regard was registered at the Sarkhej police station late on Tuesday night by the victim. . . . According to the victim, she used to study in an institute to prepare for her dream job — becoming an air hostess. Later, she also had taught at the same institute."

Depressed yet? Need I go on searching for more stories? In the court of last resort -- our daily newspapers -- the rape trial is over even before it has begun. The unnamed rape accuser is a "victim," the readily identified man or boy she accused must be a rapist, and bloggers feel perfectly justified insisting that this incontrovertible fact just isn't so. Just another day in our False Rape Society.

Police now say a woman's complaint about a sexual assault by a stranger was false.

Shortly after 1 a.m., Thursday police said the woman said she was walking on Egerton St. near Cameron St. when she was assaulted by a man and dragged into a laneway on Cameron St. just south of Hamilton Rd. and sexually assaulted.

The suspect was last seen running west on Cameron St.

The victim managed to flag down a passing police cruiser to get help.

But police said further investigation revealed "the report was determined to be unfounded and there will be no further police investigation."

Police now say a woman's complaint about a sexual assault by a stranger was false.

Shortly after 1 a.m., Thursday police said the woman said she was walking on Egerton St. near Cameron St. when she was assaulted by a man and dragged into a laneway on Cameron St. just south of Hamilton Rd. and sexually assaulted.

The suspect was last seen running west on Cameron St.

The victim managed to flag down a passing police cruiser to get help.

But police said further investigation revealed "the report was determined to be unfounded and there will be no further police investigation."

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Salon beats the radical feminist tom-tom and spreads more misinformation about the prevalence of false rape claims. This is from an article on the WikiLeaks rape claims against Julian Assange:

"It certainly appears that the case was handled poorly, but there is a whole lot we still don't know. Here's what I do know: Regardless of the validity of the specific claims against Assange, high-profile prosecutorial reversals and fumbles like this are a disservice to victims of sexual assault. They help perpetuate a distorted sense of the frequency of false accusations and contribute to the view of rape claims as a tool used to manipulate and destroy men. Ultimately, cases like this discourage victims from coming forward and only make it harder for women with legitimate claims of sexual assault to be taken seriously by police, prosecutors and the general public."

First, "high-profile prosecutorial reversals and fumbles like this" surely do a disservice to victims of sexual assault, but they do a much greater disservice to victims of false rape claims.

Second, claims such as this do not "help perpetuate a distorted sense of the frequency of false accusations" because false accusations are far more common than Salon is willing to tell its readers. It is astounding that we must continually explain how the persons who dominate the public discourse about rape are spreading myths, half-truths, and outright lies when it comes to the prevalence of false rape claims. See here. What is most galling is that publications such as Salon posit such assertions as if they were a given, suggesting that any contrary view can only be -- oh, no! Misogyny! Heaven forbid that facts should get in the way of a good feminist victim metanarrative.

Third, if cases like this "contribute to the view of rape claims as a tool used to manipulate and destroy men," that is because far too often rape claims are used precisely in this manner. Salon's writers would do well to spend several weeks reading through the true-life false rape cases and objective materials posted on this Web site before they spread any more half-truths.

Salon beats the radical feminist tom-tom and spreads more misinformation about the prevalence of false rape claims. This is from an article on the WikiLeaks rape claims against Julian Assange:

"It certainly appears that the case was handled poorly, but there is a whole lot we still don't know. Here's what I do know: Regardless of the validity of the specific claims against Assange, high-profile prosecutorial reversals and fumbles like this are a disservice to victims of sexual assault. They help perpetuate a distorted sense of the frequency of false accusations and contribute to the view of rape claims as a tool used to manipulate and destroy men. Ultimately, cases like this discourage victims from coming forward and only make it harder for women with legitimate claims of sexual assault to be taken seriously by police, prosecutors and the general public."

First, "high-profile prosecutorial reversals and fumbles like this" surely do a disservice to victims of sexual assault, but they do a much greater disservice to victims of false rape claims.

Second, claims such as this do not "help perpetuate a distorted sense of the frequency of false accusations" because false accusations are far more common than Salon is willing to tell its readers. It is astounding that we must continually explain how the persons who dominate the public discourse about rape are spreading myths, half-truths, and outright lies when it comes to the prevalence of false rape claims. See here. What is most galling is that publications such as Salon posit such assertions as if they were a given, suggesting that any contrary view can only be -- oh, no! Misogyny! Heaven forbid that facts should get in the way of a good feminist victim metanarrative.

Third, if cases like this "contribute to the view of rape claims as a tool used to manipulate and destroy men," that is because far too often rape claims are used precisely in this manner. Salon's writers would do well to spend several weeks reading through the true-life false rape cases and objective materials posted on this Web site before they spread any more half-truths.

ALISBURY -- A 31-year-old Salisbury mother was sentenced to six months of jail time after admitting she coerced her daughter into falsely accusing a man of sex abuse.

Debra Ann Tawes of Smith Street was convicted of giving a false statement to officers on Tuesday. She was sentenced to the maximum penalty allowed under state law for the misdemeanor charge.

"We're going to take false allegations seriously," said Jamie Dykes, the prosecutor. "The integrity of our system depends on that."

Tawes was taken into police custody in February after police issued a warrant for her arrest on obstructing and hindering, giving a false statement to an officer and contributing to the condition of a child (causing or encouraging a child to participate in a crime), according to court records.

The warrant was issued after city police were dispatched to Smith Street on Jan. 12 in response to a domestic disturbance, according to the state's attorneys office.

While officers were at the residence, Tawes told officers that her three-year-old daughter had reported she was sexually molested by a male roommate, according to charging documents. Officers contacted the Child Advocacy Center and Department of Social Services personnel who in turn interviewed the alleged victim and suspect.

The child was removed from the home and placed with family members as part of a voluntary "safety plan" after the interviews.

Investigators became suspicious that Tawes had influenced the child after investigators interviewed the alleged victim a second time on Jan. 15. The child's statements during the interview were inconsistent with her initial report, according to charging documents.

When confronted by investigators the same day, Tawes admitted she told the girl to lie even though the roommate did not touch her, according to charging documents.

"Tawes said this was a result of an argument she had with Lynch on Jan. 12," wrote Det. J. Seichepine in charging documents.

She told investigators she was angry with the alleged suspect because he had "interjected into to an argument" she had with her sister.

Tawes' 3-year-old daughter remains in the care of relatives, according to the state's attorneys office.

ALISBURY -- A 31-year-old Salisbury mother was sentenced to six months of jail time after admitting she coerced her daughter into falsely accusing a man of sex abuse.

Debra Ann Tawes of Smith Street was convicted of giving a false statement to officers on Tuesday. She was sentenced to the maximum penalty allowed under state law for the misdemeanor charge.

"We're going to take false allegations seriously," said Jamie Dykes, the prosecutor. "The integrity of our system depends on that."

Tawes was taken into police custody in February after police issued a warrant for her arrest on obstructing and hindering, giving a false statement to an officer and contributing to the condition of a child (causing or encouraging a child to participate in a crime), according to court records.

The warrant was issued after city police were dispatched to Smith Street on Jan. 12 in response to a domestic disturbance, according to the state's attorneys office.

While officers were at the residence, Tawes told officers that her three-year-old daughter had reported she was sexually molested by a male roommate, according to charging documents. Officers contacted the Child Advocacy Center and Department of Social Services personnel who in turn interviewed the alleged victim and suspect.

The child was removed from the home and placed with family members as part of a voluntary "safety plan" after the interviews.

Investigators became suspicious that Tawes had influenced the child after investigators interviewed the alleged victim a second time on Jan. 15. The child's statements during the interview were inconsistent with her initial report, according to charging documents.

When confronted by investigators the same day, Tawes admitted she told the girl to lie even though the roommate did not touch her, according to charging documents.

"Tawes said this was a result of an argument she had with Lynch on Jan. 12," wrote Det. J. Seichepine in charging documents.

She told investigators she was angry with the alleged suspect because he had "interjected into to an argument" she had with her sister.

Tawes' 3-year-old daughter remains in the care of relatives, according to the state's attorneys office.

Monday, August 23, 2010

It is sometimes tempting to measure the severity of a false rape claim based solely on the length of time criminal charges are permitted to hang over the head of an innocent man or boy. It can scarcely be denied that, generally, the longer charges are permitted to linger, the more serious the harm. But that doesn't mean that a claim that is quickly disposed of is necessarily only minimally harmful.

The headline seems to suggest that the harm to the falsely accused man only lasted just a short time. And I suppose we can all have a good laugh now that it's over, right?

Often, that's wrong. A false rape claim can be so terribly traumatic that even if charges only hung over the affected male's head for a few hours, the trauma, not to mention the stain of the falsehood on the man's reputation, lasts forever.

It is also well to remember that once unleashed, a false rape claim is akin to a tornado. It is capable of doing terribly destructive harm with incredible rapidity. Men and boys have been killed and have killed themselves over brand new false rape claims.

And since we see fit to measure a false rape claim's severity based on how long charges are permitted to linger, tell me, why don't we use a similar measure when we're talking about actual rape? You can bet your left testicle we will never see a headline that says the following: "Rape haunts woman -- for just a couple of minutes."

It is sometimes tempting to measure the severity of a false rape claim based solely on the length of time criminal charges are permitted to hang over the head of an innocent man or boy. It can scarcely be denied that, generally, the longer charges are permitted to linger, the more serious the harm. But that doesn't mean that a claim that is quickly disposed of is necessarily only minimally harmful.

The headline seems to suggest that the harm to the falsely accused man only lasted just a short time. And I suppose we can all have a good laugh now that it's over, right?

Often, that's wrong. A false rape claim can be so terribly traumatic that even if charges only hung over the affected male's head for a few hours, the trauma, not to mention the stain of the falsehood on the man's reputation, lasts forever.

It is also well to remember that once unleashed, a false rape claim is akin to a tornado. It is capable of doing terribly destructive harm with incredible rapidity. Men and boys have been killed and have killed themselves over brand new false rape claims.

And since we see fit to measure a false rape claim's severity based on how long charges are permitted to linger, tell me, why don't we use a similar measure when we're talking about actual rape? You can bet your left testicle we will never see a headline that says the following: "Rape haunts woman -- for just a couple of minutes."

A YOUNG mother whose false rape claim led to an 18-year-old man being arrested and spending 13 hours in a police station has been sentenced to 15 months’ detention.

Nineteen-year-old Jade Brooks, who has recently given birth, broke down in tears at being separated from her baby daughter and was taken into custody still protesting her innocence.

Brooks, of Sherborne Road, Bury St Edmunds, had denied a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice by making a false rape claim in July 2008 but was found guilty by a jury after a trial at Ipswich Crown Court in May when she was heavily pregnant.

The case was adjourned until yesterday for a pre-sentence report and to allow her to recover from giving birth.

Sentencing Brooks to 15 months detention in a young offenders’ institution, of which she will have to serve half, Judge David Goodin said that as a result of her making a “wicked” false rape claim an innocent man had been arrested and spent a number of hours at a police station.

During that time he had been subjected to an intimate examination by a doctor, interviewed under caution and following his release on bail had the matter hanging over him until he was told by police a couple of months later that no further action would be taken against him.

Judge Goodin said that as well as the damage to the wrongfully arrested suspect false rape claims did a huge disservice to women who were genuine victims of rape.

During the trial the court heard that Brooks was seen kissing and cuddling the teenager she later accused of raping her.

One of Brooks’ friends said that before disappearing into bushes in Haverhill, Brooks had allowed him to touch her breasts and had not seemed uncomfortable with what was going on.

The witness said that Brooks had been tipsy, but not drunk, and there hadn’t been any screams, cries for help or raised voices during the time Brooks was alone with the man in the bushes.

The same witness said that later the same evening she had gone with Brooks and the 18-year-old man to a house in Duddery Road, Haverhill, and claimed she had seen Brooks perform a sex act on him.

The court heard that after complaining to police that she had been raped she had subsequently refused to be video-interviewed about the allegation and the man was told he wouldn’t be prosecuted.

Shereen Dyer, for Brooks, said her client accepted the jury’s verdict but stood by her version of events which was that she had been telling the truth.

Miss Dyer urged the court to consider passing a suspended sentence on Brooks because of the damaging effect an immediate sentence would have on her and her baby.

A YOUNG mother whose false rape claim led to an 18-year-old man being arrested and spending 13 hours in a police station has been sentenced to 15 months’ detention.

Nineteen-year-old Jade Brooks, who has recently given birth, broke down in tears at being separated from her baby daughter and was taken into custody still protesting her innocence.

Brooks, of Sherborne Road, Bury St Edmunds, had denied a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice by making a false rape claim in July 2008 but was found guilty by a jury after a trial at Ipswich Crown Court in May when she was heavily pregnant.

The case was adjourned until yesterday for a pre-sentence report and to allow her to recover from giving birth.

Sentencing Brooks to 15 months detention in a young offenders’ institution, of which she will have to serve half, Judge David Goodin said that as a result of her making a “wicked” false rape claim an innocent man had been arrested and spent a number of hours at a police station.

During that time he had been subjected to an intimate examination by a doctor, interviewed under caution and following his release on bail had the matter hanging over him until he was told by police a couple of months later that no further action would be taken against him.

Judge Goodin said that as well as the damage to the wrongfully arrested suspect false rape claims did a huge disservice to women who were genuine victims of rape.

During the trial the court heard that Brooks was seen kissing and cuddling the teenager she later accused of raping her.

One of Brooks’ friends said that before disappearing into bushes in Haverhill, Brooks had allowed him to touch her breasts and had not seemed uncomfortable with what was going on.

The witness said that Brooks had been tipsy, but not drunk, and there hadn’t been any screams, cries for help or raised voices during the time Brooks was alone with the man in the bushes.

The same witness said that later the same evening she had gone with Brooks and the 18-year-old man to a house in Duddery Road, Haverhill, and claimed she had seen Brooks perform a sex act on him.

The court heard that after complaining to police that she had been raped she had subsequently refused to be video-interviewed about the allegation and the man was told he wouldn’t be prosecuted.

Shereen Dyer, for Brooks, said her client accepted the jury’s verdict but stood by her version of events which was that she had been telling the truth.

Miss Dyer urged the court to consider passing a suspended sentence on Brooks because of the damaging effect an immediate sentence would have on her and her baby.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

If you want to destroy a man without officially killing him, there is no better way to do that than to falsely accuse him of rape. If a government wanted to hurt someone (provided he is male), is it so difficult to believe it would arrange for him to be falsely accused of rape?

We don't know the full story behind the murky Wikileaks rape claim that initially saw Swedish prosecutors issue an arrest warrant for Australian whistleblower Julian Assangelate on Friday night only to withdrew it the following day. For example, no one is using the word "false" in connection with the rape claim, but it seems unlikely that prosecutors simply decided not to press rape charges based on a determination that it couldn't prevail at trial, or even based on the women's decision not to cooperate. Not that quickly.

Assange said in an interview published on Sunday that he believes the Pentagon could be behind the rape accusation. He said that he had been warned previously that groups such as the Pentagon "could use dirty tricks" to destroy Wikileaks -- adding that he had been particularly warned against being entrapped by sexual scandals.

If you want to destroy a man without officially killing him, there is no better way to do that than to falsely accuse him of rape. If a government wanted to hurt someone (provided he is male), is it so difficult to believe it would arrange for him to be falsely accused of rape?

We don't know the full story behind the murky Wikileaks rape claim that initially saw Swedish prosecutors issue an arrest warrant for Australian whistleblower Julian Assangelate on Friday night only to withdrew it the following day. For example, no one is using the word "false" in connection with the rape claim, but it seems unlikely that prosecutors simply decided not to press rape charges based on a determination that it couldn't prevail at trial, or even based on the women's decision not to cooperate. Not that quickly.

Assange said in an interview published on Sunday that he believes the Pentagon could be behind the rape accusation. He said that he had been warned previously that groups such as the Pentagon "could use dirty tricks" to destroy Wikileaks -- adding that he had been particularly warned against being entrapped by sexual scandals.

It begins with the claim of earnest feminists, that they "don't hate men at all, and that those so-called feminists who do hate men are not really feminists at all, and that we've just got it all wrong."

I've butted heads with earnest feminists making these claims for years, in discussion groups and chat rooms online, and a few times in person. I note that in-person, face-to-face headbutting is usually much more civil, even polite, than what happens online; but feminist minds seem to be equally closed and concrete-hard, regardless of where the discussion transpires.

Earny-fems not only deny that man-hating feminists are not real feminists; they deny the many ways feminist man-hating manifests in our culture.

A couple of years ago, I had a some lively discussions about a Newsweek article by feminist Carol Gilligan claiming that studying girls can teach us about boys.

In making her case that boys can "read the human world astutely" she claims that boys, to avoid "compromising masculinity," often repudiate their "human qualities" (i.e., emotional openness, sensitivity and connectedness). She illustrates this with an anecdote about little Sam.

Four-year-old Sam asked his mother one day, "Mommy, why are you sad?" Wanting to shield him from her sadness, she replied, "I'm not sad." Sam said, "Mommy, I know you. I was inside you."

Well, I told the folks in my discussion group that this was a bunch of hooey. Utter shuck. Made. Up.

A four-year-old -- girl or boy -- would not make that kind of abstract connection, I explained. Little Sam would know his mommy was sad because she had a sad expression on her face, or because she was crying. Most kids that young would associate "being inside" someone with being devoured, a terrifying concept which does not fit with emotional openness, sensitivity and connectedness.

The outcry produced in the group was a marvelous illustration of the traversing of feminist tangents. Did I think four-year-olds don't know where babies come from? (Some of them do, but that wasn't the point.) It's because I've never had kids that I don't know what four-year-olds think. (If you have to personally experience something in order to discuss it, a great many people in that group would have to forego commenting on their favorite subjects.)

The one I liked best, though, from one of the most earnest, self-proclaimed feminists in the group, was that nobody ever heard of Carol Gilligan, so how much influence could she have?

Well, Carol Gilligan, for those who don't know, almost single-handedly started the process of making elementary and secondary education in the USA hostile to the way boys learn. You can read about it here:

This, of course, is another point of denial for earnest feminists. The schools aren't hostile to the way boys learn, they claim. They've just stopped being hostile to the ways girls learn, and the girls are catching up -- nay, surpassing -- boys.

And this defense of feminism frequently comes from women who say they have sons. Gilligan starts her article noting that she has three of them.

Regardless of how earnest feminists choose to see it, feminism is shot through with manhating. If education truly was hostile to the way little girls learn, the remedy would have been to make it accomodating of them without harming boys. The fact that the road chosen included hostility not only to the way boys learn, but to boys themselves, has now resulted in an educational boy-crisis that is difficult for even feminists to deny.

And how many folks believe that Title Nining college sports would have been so popular among certain cirles if it had only made sports equally available to female students? No, it is the eradication of so many male sports that rouse feminists to a fist-pumping "Yes!"

I could go on, but that should illustrate it well enough. What underlies so much of the feminist push to change culture in the guise of helping women is really a hostilility to men, the same hostility that creates hysteria over an imaginary "rape culture" and that equates a man accused of rape with "perpetrator" and the accuser with "victim," before it has even been determined that rape occurred.

Earnest feminists can deny it all they wish but misandry is an integral and visible component of feminism.

*Connie is a member of the FRS team. Her weekly essays appear every Friday. Her personal blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/

It begins with the claim of earnest feminists, that they "don't hate men at all, and that those so-called feminists who do hate men are not really feminists at all, and that we've just got it all wrong."

I've butted heads with earnest feminists making these claims for years, in discussion groups and chat rooms online, and a few times in person. I note that in-person, face-to-face headbutting is usually much more civil, even polite, than what happens online; but feminist minds seem to be equally closed and concrete-hard, regardless of where the discussion transpires.

Earny-fems not only deny that man-hating feminists are not real feminists; they deny the many ways feminist man-hating manifests in our culture.

A couple of years ago, I had a some lively discussions about a Newsweek article by feminist Carol Gilligan claiming that studying girls can teach us about boys.

In making her case that boys can "read the human world astutely" she claims that boys, to avoid "compromising masculinity," often repudiate their "human qualities" (i.e., emotional openness, sensitivity and connectedness). She illustrates this with an anecdote about little Sam.

Four-year-old Sam asked his mother one day, "Mommy, why are you sad?" Wanting to shield him from her sadness, she replied, "I'm not sad." Sam said, "Mommy, I know you. I was inside you."

Well, I told the folks in my discussion group that this was a bunch of hooey. Utter shuck. Made. Up.

A four-year-old -- girl or boy -- would not make that kind of abstract connection, I explained. Little Sam would know his mommy was sad because she had a sad expression on her face, or because she was crying. Most kids that young would associate "being inside" someone with being devoured, a terrifying concept which does not fit with emotional openness, sensitivity and connectedness.

The outcry produced in the group was a marvelous illustration of the traversing of feminist tangents. Did I think four-year-olds don't know where babies come from? (Some of them do, but that wasn't the point.) It's because I've never had kids that I don't know what four-year-olds think. (If you have to personally experience something in order to discuss it, a great many people in that group would have to forego commenting on their favorite subjects.)

The one I liked best, though, from one of the most earnest, self-proclaimed feminists in the group, was that nobody ever heard of Carol Gilligan, so how much influence could she have?

Well, Carol Gilligan, for those who don't know, almost single-handedly started the process of making elementary and secondary education in the USA hostile to the way boys learn. You can read about it here:

This, of course, is another point of denial for earnest feminists. The schools aren't hostile to the way boys learn, they claim. They've just stopped being hostile to the ways girls learn, and the girls are catching up -- nay, surpassing -- boys.

And this defense of feminism frequently comes from women who say they have sons. Gilligan starts her article noting that she has three of them.

Regardless of how earnest feminists choose to see it, feminism is shot through with manhating. If education truly was hostile to the way little girls learn, the remedy would have been to make it accomodating of them without harming boys. The fact that the road chosen included hostility not only to the way boys learn, but to boys themselves, has now resulted in an educational boy-crisis that is difficult for even feminists to deny.

And how many folks believe that Title Nining college sports would have been so popular among certain cirles if it had only made sports equally available to female students? No, it is the eradication of so many male sports that rouse feminists to a fist-pumping "Yes!"

I could go on, but that should illustrate it well enough. What underlies so much of the feminist push to change culture in the guise of helping women is really a hostilility to men, the same hostility that creates hysteria over an imaginary "rape culture" and that equates a man accused of rape with "perpetrator" and the accuser with "victim," before it has even been determined that rape occurred.

Earnest feminists can deny it all they wish but misandry is an integral and visible component of feminism.

*Connie is a member of the FRS team. Her weekly essays appear every Friday. Her personal blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/

Among many other informal rules of the modern news media when it comes to its coverage of rape is this: if there are dueling claims of rape and false reporting of rape, assume a rape occurred. One of the best ways to do that is to make sure you continually refer to the rape accuser as the "victim."

This particular news report concerns an investigation by a Sheriff's department into dueling claims of sexual assault and false informing about an alleged rape involving a male and a female inmate at a county jail. The Sheriff concluded that no charges would be filed against either inmate because "no crime has been committed that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

That result is fairly typical. But the Kokomo Perspective won't let the matter rest. First, it suggest that the female prisoner, who was isolated from the rest of the female prison population in lock-down for reasons unknown, was permitted to be in a shower around male convicts without a guard present in violation of jail policy.

So what could this purported violation of jail policy mean? Well, based on the two persons interviewed by the Kokomo Perspective, the mother and the cell mate of the "victim," it means a rape occurred.

The mother believes that the jail is not pursuing the "victim's" rape charge because it is attempting to cover up its own negligence in leaving a naked female prisoner unattended with -- gulp -- naked male prisoners. Neither of the persons interviewed have first-hand knowledge about what happened in the shower. The only evidence of the alleged rape is the say-so of the female prisoner.

Among other things, the mother said this: "[Major] Steven Rogers told me that, yes, this child was raped. They did a rape kit at St. Joseph Hospital, and there was penetration.” In fact, the news article corrects the mother: Rogers said that what he told the mother about the rape kit “indicated that she had sex.”

And that sums up the problem with the article. Instead of merely exploring whether the jail breached a policy to keep male and female inmates separate, the article seems intent on suggesting -- through extended quotations of intimates of the "victim" -- that the jail breached such a policy and that this breach allowed a rape to occur.

The article never seems to consider the possibility that if the jail breached a policy to keep male and female inmates separate, such breach more likely resulted in consensual sex. I suspect that one of the purposes underlying the policy to keep naked male and female prisoners separate is to insure that they won't engage in consensual sex because, for a variety of reasons, that's not what society wants prisoners doing in jail.

Consensual sex is, of course, far, far more common than rape, but why let that fact get in the way of a good rape story? Let us be honest, consensual sex doesn't sell newspapers the way rape does. There's no conflict; no customary male villain; no female damsel in distress victimized by a male-dominated law enforcement apparatus; nothing to get the readers' blood boiling.

The journalistic decision to suggest that a rape occurred by playing up the rape angle rather than merely focusing on the alleged breach of the jail policy highlights a common failing when it comes to news reporting about rape. One of the best ways to play up the rape angle is to make sure you let your readers know that you think the rape accuser is the "victim." How do you do that? Why bother being subtle? If you want people to think the accuser was raped, go ahead and just call her the "victim." This article does that not once, or even twice, but seven times. That's right: seven times.

How many times must we say this? By labeling the accuser the "victim" despite the fact that there are dueling charges of rape and false reporting that, the Sheriff has concluded, do not warrant charges, the newspaper has impliedly rushed to judgment and declared the rape accuser's allegation to be factual and the male's version of the facts to be a lie.

Such a description also does a grave disservice to the readers of the Kokomo Perspective who are entitled to accurate reporting but receive something less than that when the paper transforms a rape accuser into a "victim."

Among many other informal rules of the modern news media when it comes to its coverage of rape is this: if there are dueling claims of rape and false reporting of rape, assume a rape occurred. One of the best ways to do that is to make sure you continually refer to the rape accuser as the "victim."

This particular news report concerns an investigation by a Sheriff's department into dueling claims of sexual assault and false informing about an alleged rape involving a male and a female inmate at a county jail. The Sheriff concluded that no charges would be filed against either inmate because "no crime has been committed that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

That result is fairly typical. But the Kokomo Perspective won't let the matter rest. First, it suggest that the female prisoner, who was isolated from the rest of the female prison population in lock-down for reasons unknown, was permitted to be in a shower around male convicts without a guard present in violation of jail policy.

So what could this purported violation of jail policy mean? Well, based on the two persons interviewed by the Kokomo Perspective, the mother and the cell mate of the "victim," it means a rape occurred.

The mother believes that the jail is not pursuing the "victim's" rape charge because it is attempting to cover up its own negligence in leaving a naked female prisoner unattended with -- gulp -- naked male prisoners. Neither of the persons interviewed have first-hand knowledge about what happened in the shower. The only evidence of the alleged rape is the say-so of the female prisoner.

Among other things, the mother said this: "[Major] Steven Rogers told me that, yes, this child was raped. They did a rape kit at St. Joseph Hospital, and there was penetration.” In fact, the news article corrects the mother: Rogers said that what he told the mother about the rape kit “indicated that she had sex.”

And that sums up the problem with the article. Instead of merely exploring whether the jail breached a policy to keep male and female inmates separate, the article seems intent on suggesting -- through extended quotations of intimates of the "victim" -- that the jail breached such a policy and that this breach allowed a rape to occur.

The article never seems to consider the possibility that if the jail breached a policy to keep male and female inmates separate, such breach more likely resulted in consensual sex. I suspect that one of the purposes underlying the policy to keep naked male and female prisoners separate is to insure that they won't engage in consensual sex because, for a variety of reasons, that's not what society wants prisoners doing in jail.

Consensual sex is, of course, far, far more common than rape, but why let that fact get in the way of a good rape story? Let us be honest, consensual sex doesn't sell newspapers the way rape does. There's no conflict; no customary male villain; no female damsel in distress victimized by a male-dominated law enforcement apparatus; nothing to get the readers' blood boiling.

The journalistic decision to suggest that a rape occurred by playing up the rape angle rather than merely focusing on the alleged breach of the jail policy highlights a common failing when it comes to news reporting about rape. One of the best ways to play up the rape angle is to make sure you let your readers know that you think the rape accuser is the "victim." How do you do that? Why bother being subtle? If you want people to think the accuser was raped, go ahead and just call her the "victim." This article does that not once, or even twice, but seven times. That's right: seven times.

How many times must we say this? By labeling the accuser the "victim" despite the fact that there are dueling charges of rape and false reporting that, the Sheriff has concluded, do not warrant charges, the newspaper has impliedly rushed to judgment and declared the rape accuser's allegation to be factual and the male's version of the facts to be a lie.

Such a description also does a grave disservice to the readers of the Kokomo Perspective who are entitled to accurate reporting but receive something less than that when the paper transforms a rape accuser into a "victim."

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

This is a must-read story about an astounding case of a likely miscarriage of justice. Jesse Friedman, who pled guilty when he was just a teenager to all manner of sexual abusing boys, this week was denied habeas corpus relief by the Second Circuit of Appeals after ample evidence showed that exculpatory evidence was withheld from him by the prosecutor at the time of his guilty plea. Even though the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied relief, it wrote this chilling statement: "The record here suggests 'a reasonable likelihood' that Jesse Friedman was wrongfully convicted." The Second Court felt compelled to deny Jesse's Petition for relief, but in a very rare departure from accepted judicial protocol, wrote at great length to explain the likelihood that Jesse was wrongfully convicted.

In immediate response to the Second Circuit's decision, "a team of prosecutors and a panel of law enforcement, legal and social science experts are being assembled to reinvestigate the case of a man convicted in 1988 of sexually abusing children, according to a statement issued on Tuesday by the Nassau County District Attorney's office. . . . The announcement to reopen the case comes in response to a federal appeals court decision that suggested prosecutors had an 'ethical obligation' to reopen the 1988 child molestation case of Friedman." http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/17/child.molestation.case.reopened/?hpt=T2

Here are the facts as outlined in the actual opinion of the Second Circuit, gleaned from the court record and evidence uncovered after the guilty plea:

In 1982, Arnold Friedman, a retired school teacher, began teaching computer classes to children in his family's home in Great Neck, New York. In September 1984, Arnold asked his 15-year-old son, Jesse Friedman, to assist him in teaching classes. Jesse did this until September 1987, when he left to attend college. After a customs agent intercepted a package containing child pornography addressed to Arnold Friedman, federal agents obtained a list of names of eighty-one students enrolled in Arnold Friedman's computer classes. Detective teams interviewed the students about possible abuse. On November 25, 1987, Arnold Friedman and Jesse Friedman were arrested on a felony complaint alleging child sexual abuse. Between December 1987 and November 1988, Jesse was charged with two hundred and forty-three counts of sexual abuse including allegations from fourteen boys ranging in age from eight to twelve years old. Prosecutors had no physical evidence and relied entirely on allegations made by students. No student had ever complained of abuse, nor had any parent ever observed suspicious behavior, prior to the investigation. Assistant District Attorney Onorato acknowledged that "there was a dearth of physical evidence."

According to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals: "The Nassau County Police Department never produced transcripts, recordings, or videotapes of the student interviews that preceded the indictments. Moreover, because Arnold Friedman and [Jesse Friedman] ultimately pled guilty, the circumstances surrounding the interviews were not explored at trial. Some former students and their parents, however, recall with great consistency that detectives employed aggressive and suggestive questioning techniques to gain statements from children who had attended Arnold Friedman's computer classes. Detectives generally entered an interview with a presumption that a child had been abused and refused to accept denials of abuse. If a child denied being the victim of abuse on a first visit, detectives would often visit the child repeatedly for followup interviews, each lasting as long as four hours, until the child admitted abuse. In one case, detectives visited a child fifteen times and assured the child's mother before the final visit that they were going to stay 'as long as it takes.'" (Emphasis added.)

Moreover: "detectives would often tell children that Arnold Friedman or petitioner had already admitted molesting them or that other students had claimed to have observed them being molested." And: "The detectives would reward cooperative children with "pizza parties" and police badges. When children did not admit to experiencing sexual abuse, however, detectives would persist in their questioning, sometimes taunting the children for failing to offer the desired answers. The tactics were so aggressive that several former students admit that they responded to them by falsely alleging instances of abuse. Although these children were aware that they were lying to the detectives, they ultimately surrendered to the pressure and "remembered" instances of abuse just to "get [the detectives] off [their] back[s]." And: "The allegations also grew increasingly bizarre, sadistic, and even logistically implausible. For example, [one] indictment described several group molestation exercises, including 'Leap Frog,' in which Arnold Friedman and [Jesse Friedman] allegedly sodomized an entire class of naked boys by 'leaping' from one to the next." And: "[A]n anonymous student, described as the source of thirty-five sodomy counts, claim[ed] he was subjected to hypnosis prior to recalling abuse. According to the anonymous student, . . . he did not recall any sexual abuse until after he went through hypnosis . . . ."

Is it at all surprising that Jesse Friedman pled guilty? The "already hostile atmosphere . . . made a fair trial impossible." So "he made up the story about his father molesting him as a child because he believed it might insulate him from attacks in prison and might persuade Judge Boklan to ask the parole board for leniency on his behalf."

Jesse Friedman now claims that much evidence tending to show that the charges against him were fabricated was withheld from him before he entered his guilty plea; specifically, that (1) some eyewitnesses had initially denied sexual abuse, (2) detectives used interrogation methods known for eliciting false accusations, and (3) at least one suggestive memory recovery tactic—hypnosis—was used to induce memory recall.

The Second Circuit denied Jesse Friedman's petition because he failed to file a habeas petition within one year of the date he learned evidence had been withheld. Additionally, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the judicial decisions interpreting it, the failure to disclose impeachment information prior to a guilty plea does not violate the Due Process Clause. According to the court: "While the Supreme Court [has] acknowledged that 'the more information the defendant has, the more aware he is of the likely consequences of a plea, waiver, or decision, and the wiser that decision will likely be,' it held that 'the Constitution does not require the prosecutor to share all useful information with the defendant.'"

The Second Circuit's decision was disappointing, but the court proceeded to write at considerable length about the likelihood that an innocent man was convicted. We will reproduce the entirety of that discussion after the jump:From FRIEDMAN v. REHAL, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, August 16, 2010:

While the law may require us to deny relief in this case, it does not compel us to do so without voicing some concern regarding the process by which the petitioner's conviction was obtained. The magnitude of the allegations against petitioner must be viewed in the context of the late-1980's and early-1990's, a period in which allegations of outrageously bizarre and often ritualistic child abuse spread like wildfire across the country and garnered world-wide media attention. See, e.g., Susan Bandes, The Lessons of Capturing the Friedmans: Moral Panic, Institutional Denial and Due Process, 3 Law Culture & Human. 293, 294 (2007) (noting that the accusations against Arnold and Jesse Friedman arose at "a time at which concern about day care sexual abuse had reached a fever pitch both in the United States and abroad"). The media sensationalized these allegations, generating a national perception that sex rings were widespread and had infiltrated average communities. See, e.g., Devil Worship: Exposing Satan's Underground, Geraldo Rivera (NBC television broadcast Oct. 28, 1988).

Vast moral panic fueled a series of highly-questionable child sex abuse prosecutions.[ 8 ] See Samuel P. Gross, Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003, 95 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 523, 539-40 (2005). See generally Dorothy Rabinowitz, No Crueler Tyrannies: Accusation, False Witness, and Other Terrors of Our Times (2003). By 1991, for example, 25 percent of prosecutors had handled at least one case involving satanic abuse. See Elizabeth F. Loftus & Deborah Davis, Recovered Memories, 2 Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 469, 477 (2006). Although many of these cases included "fantastical accusations," such as those of satanic abuse—a strand of accusations which has been discredited entirely—others involved allegations of real and serious crimes committed in an impossible manner. Bandes, supra, at 301. In the Fells Acre case, for example, Gerald Amiraults, a member of a family which owned the Fells Acre pre-school, allegedly "plunged a wide-blade butcher knife into the rectum of a 4-year-old boy, which he then had trouble removing." Dorothy Rabinowitz, Martha Coakley's Convictions, Wall St. J., Jan. 15, 2010, at A19. According to a child witness, a teacher in the school saw Amiraults with the knife, asked what he was doing, and then told him not to do it again. "On this testimony, Gerald was convicted of a rape which had, miraculously, left no mark or other injury." Id.

Overall, at least seventy-two individuals were convicted in nearly a dozen major child sex abuse and satanic ritual prosecutions between 1984 and 1995, although almost all the convictions have since been reversed. See Gross, supra, at 540 & n.40. Some defendants, fearing trial, pled guilty or "no contest" to impossible acts of ritualistic abuse, and in some cases they provided detailed confessions in exchange for immunity or generous plea bargains. See Debbie Nathan & Michael Snedeker, Satan's Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of a Modern American Witch Hunt 160-77 (1995). Many have described these widespread prosecutions as a modern-day "witch hunt." See generally, e.g., Richard Guilliatt, Talk of the Devil: Repressed Memories and the Ritual Abuse Witch-Hunt (1996); Nathan & Snedeker, supra; Elizabeth Loftus & Katherine Ketcham, The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse (1994); Richard A. Gardner, Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited (1992).

These prosecutions were largely based on memories that alleged victims "recovered" through suggestive memory recovery tactics, including those petitioner claims were used in this case. Indeed, the dramatic increase in conspiratorial charges of child sexual abuse has been traced to a relatively small group of clinical psychologists who supported the psychoanalytic notion of "repressed memories" and encouraged patients to employ extensive "memory recovery procedures" to "break through the barrier of repression and bring memories into conscious awareness." Loftus & Davis, supra, at 470-71, 483-86; see also Kamala London et al., Disclosure of Child Sexual Abuse: What Does the Research Tell Us About the Ways Children Tell?, 11 Psychol. Pub. Pol. & L. 194, 213 (2005). Popular memory recovery procedures included hypnosis, age regression, dream interpretation, guided abuse-related imagery, use of photographs to trigger memories, journaling, and interpretation of symptoms as implicit memories. Loftus & Davis, supra, at 483-84. These procedures and others commonly employed have great potential to induce false memories. See id. at 484. Hypnosis, for example, has been shown to produce bizarre and impossible memories, including memories of ritualistic satanic abuse, memories from early infancy, memories from past lives, and memories from the future. Id.; see also Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 59-61 (1987); Borawick v. Shay, 68 F.3d 597, 603-04 (2d Cir. 1995). The prevailing view is that the vast majority of traumatic memories that are recovered through the use of suggestive recovery procedures are false, and that almost all—if not all—of the recovered memories of horrific abuse from the late-1980's and early-1990's were false. See id. at 477.

Moreover, many highly-publicized and large-scale investigations into alleged child abuse conspiracies were also accompanied by a variety of interviewing techniques designed to assist children in recalling abuse—techniques which an extensive body of research suggests can induce false reports. See, e.g., Sena Garven et al., More Than Suggestion: The Effect of Interviewing Techniques From the McMartin Preschool Case, 83 J. Applied Psychol. 347, 347 (1998). Garven et al. describes a "package" of techniques that, although based on a different highly-publicized 1980's abuse case,[ 9 ] are remarkably similar to the techniques employed in petitioner's case. The package included (1) "Suggestive Questions," (2) "Other People" (telling the child that the interviewer has already received information from other people regarding the topics of the interview), (3) "Positive and Negative Consequences" (responding positively to accusations of abuse and negatively to denials of abuse), (4) "Asked-and-Answered" (re-asking a child a question he or she has already unambiguously answered), and (5) "Inviting Speculation."[ 10 ] Id. at 348-50.

Scholars have suggested that each interviewing technique can induce false reports on its own. For example, they cite research which indicates that children often change their answer when asked the same question more than once during an interview, either because they assume that the first answer was incorrect or because they would like to please the adult interviewer. See Thomas D. Lyon, Applying Suggestibility Research to the Real World: The Case of Repeated Questions, 65 Law & Contemp. Probs. 97, 106 (2002). But the techniques have their greatest impact in combination. Garven et al. examined the effect of the "package" of techniques described above on false allegations of wrongdoing compared with suggestive questioning alone. See Garven et al., supra, at 350. They found that children exposed to the package of techniques falsely alleged wrongdoing over three times as often (58 percent of the time, compared to 17 percent of the time). Id. at 354. This error rate of nearly 60 percent occurred after less than five minutes of exposure to the combined techniques. Id. Though the study examined children who were somewhat younger than the complainants in petitioner's case, see id. at 350, the results are instructive as to the general dangers of suggestive interviewing techniques.

Finally, once individuals "recovered" memories of abuse or otherwise labeled themselves victims of abuse, they were generally encouraged to participate in various activities on an individual and community level to reinforce and develop existing memories of abuse. Loftus & Davis, supra, at 483. There, proponents of recovered memories advised alleged victims to expand on existing memories through suggestive memory recovery procedures (both in and out of therapy), participation in survivor groups, and solicitation of consistent information from others, "all with significant potential both to bias construction of historical narratives and to lead to confabulation of false memories." Id. When allegations of abuse span an entire community, these activities can provide an outlet for community reinforcement—an outlet which can strengthen survivor identities and foster the collective growth of increasingly inaccurate memories. See id.

When viewed in its proper historical context, petitioner's case appears as merely one example of what was then a significant national trend. This was a "heater case"—the type of "high profile case" in which "tremendous emotion is generated by the public." Bandes, supra, at 310. In heater cases, the criminal process often fails:

Emotions like fear, outrage, anger and disgust, in situations like these, are entirely human. The question is what the legal system can do to correct for the excesses to which they lead. The crux of the moral panic dynamic is that the legal system, in such cases, does not correct for them. It gets swept up in them instead.

Id. at 312. The record in this case suggests this is precisely the moral panic that swept up Nassau County law enforcement officers. Perhaps because they were certain of Arnold Friedman and petitioner's guilt, they were unfazed by the lack of physical evidence, and they may have felt comfortable cutting corners in their investigation. After all, "[t]horoughness is a frequent casualty of such cases." Id. at 309. The actions of the prosecution are also troubling. In representing the sovereign, a prosecutor is a "servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). "[W]hile [a prosecutor] may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." Id. Thus, prosecutors have an obligation to curb police overzealousness. In this case, instead of acting to neutralize the moral panic, the prosecution allowed itself to get swept up in it.

Petitioner has come forward with substantial evidence that flawed interviewing techniques were used to produce a flood of allegations, which the then-District Attorney of Nassau County wrung into over two hundred claims of child sexual abuse against petitioner. Petitioner never had an opportunity to explore how the evidence against him was obtained. On the contrary, the police, prosecutors, and the judge did everything they could to coerce a guilty plea and avoid a trial. Thus, with the number of counts in the indictments and Judge Boklan's threat to impose the highest conceivable sentence for each charge, petitioner faced a virtually certain life sentence if he was convicted at trial. And the likelihood that any jury pool would be tainted seemed to ensure that petitioner would be convicted if he went to trial, regardless of his guilt or innocence. Nor could he have reasonably expected to receive a fair trial from Judge Boklan, the former head of the Nassau County District Attorney's Sex Crime Unit, who admitted that she never had any doubt of the defendant's guilt even before she heard any of the evidence or the means by which it was obtained. Even if innocent, petitioner may well have pled guilty.

As such, this case is unlike other appeals which raise concerns about the quality of the evidence and the guilt of the defendant. In those appeals, we defer to the judgment of the jury after the defendant has received a fair trial. We take comfort in "[t]he established safeguards of the Anglo-American legal system [which] leave the veracity of a witness to be tested by cross-examination, and the credibility of his testimony to be determined by a properly instructed jury." Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 311 (1966). In this case, the quality of the evidence was extraordinarily suspect and never subjected to vigorous cross-examination or the judgment of a properly instructed jury.

Judge Friendly observed in his seminal essay on habeas corpus that, "[a] remedy that produces no result in the overwhelming majority of cases,... an unjust one to the state in much of the exceedingly small minority, and a truly good one only rarely, would seem to need consideration with a view to caring for the unusual case of the innocent man without being burdened by so much dross in the process." See Henry J. Friendly, Is Innocence Irrelevant? Collateral Attack on Criminal Judgements, 38 U. Chi. L. Rev. 142, 148 (1970) (footnote omitted). The Supreme Court has not finally resolved the issue of whether there is a federal Constitutional right to be released upon proof of actual innocence. As Chief Justice Roberts recently observed, "Whether such a federal right exists is an open question. We have struggled with it over the years, in some cases assuming, arguendo, that it exists while also noting the difficult questions such a right would pose and the high standard any claimant would have to meet." District Attorney's Office v. Osborne, 129 S. Ct. 2309, 2321 (2009) (citations omitted).

Nevertheless, even if we also assumed that such a federal right exists, and that petitioner could meet the "high standard any claimant would have to meet" to obtain relief, we could not reach that issue here. This is so because petitioner has not exhausted that claim in the New York State courts even though the New York cases suggest that relief on this basis may be available pursuant to N.Y. Crim. P. § 441.10(1)(h). See, e.g., People v. Day, 26 Misc. 3d 1205(A), 2009 WL 5191433, *13 (N.Y. County Ct. Dec. 31, 2009); People v. Bermudez, No. 8759/91, 2009 WL 3823270, *22 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 9, 2009); People v. Wheeler-Whichard, 884 N.Y.S.2d 304, 313 (Sup. Ct. 2009); People v. Bozella, 25 Misc. 3d 1215(a), 2009 WL 3364575, *16 (N.Y. County Ct. Oct. 14, 2009); People v. Cole, 766 N.Y.S.2d 477, 484-85 (Sup. Ct. 2003). Considering the facts of the case and the circumstances that caused him to plead guilty, this case may be one in which the New York courts may be particularly sympathetic to a proceeding seeking such relief.

The focus on the impediment to legal relief, however, should not obscure the continuing ethical obligation of the District Attorney to seek justice. We refer here especially to New York Rules of Professional Conduct 3.8, Comment 6B, which explains that "[t]he prosecutor's duty to seek justice has traditionally been understood not only to require the prosecutor to take precautions to avoid convicting innocent individuals, but also to require the prosecutor to take reasonable remedial measures when it appears likely that an innocent person was wrongly convicted." N.Y. Rules Prof'l Conduct 3.8, cmt. 6B. In language particularly pertinent here, the Comment goes on to say:

[W]hen a prosecutor comes to know of new and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a person was wrongly convicted, the prosecutor should examine the evidence and undertake such further inquiry or investigation as may be necessary to determine whether the conviction was wrongful. The scope of the inquiry will depend on the circumstances. In some cases, the prosecutor may recognize the need to reinvestigate the underlying case; in others, it may be appropriate to await development of the record in collateral proceedings initiated by the defendant. The nature of the inquiry or investigation should be such as to provide a "reasonable belief"... that the conviction should or should not be set aside.

Id.

The record here suggests "a reasonable likelihood" that Jesse Friedman was wrongfully convicted. The "new and material evidence" in this case is the post-conviction consensus within the social science community that suggestive memory recovery tactics can create false memories and that aggressive investigation techniques like those employed in petitioner's case can induce false reports. Indeed, it is not even clear from the record that Assistant District Attorney Onorato was aware of the suggestive questioning techniques that were used by the Nassau County police.[ 11 ] More importantly, the record does not speak to whether the then—District Attorney of Nassau County, whose principal role was administering and overseeing the activities of one of the largest such offices in the United States,[ 12 ] was aware of the techniques used by the Nassau County detectives, who were not members of his staff.

Only a reinvestigation of the underlying case or the development of a complete record in a collateral proceeding can provide a basis for determining whether petitioner's conviction should be set aside. We hope that, even if she continues to oppose relief in collateral legal proceedings, the current Nassau County District Attorney, who was not responsible for the investigation and prosecution of Jesse Friedman, will undertake the kind of complete review of the underlying case suggested in the Comment to Rule 3.8.